Difference between revisions of "User talk:Brendan"

Revision as of 08:00, 4 August 2014

Linking to the manned experiments

Hi, I just wanted to note, that when you link to manned experiments (Crew Report, EVA Report and Surface Sample) please link to [[Crew Report]] (etc.) because you recently changed the section titles from e.g. Crew Reports to Crew Report. Now if every article had linked to Crew Report instead of [[Science#Crew Reports]] only that one article (Crew Report) needs to be updated. Also when there might be a real article in Crew Report no links to it need to be updated.

The only exception is within Science itself, because then the browser can simply scroll down instead of loading a new page and then scrolling down. — xZise [talk] 06:26, 16 March 2014 (CDT)

[[EVA Report]] and [[Surface Sample]] with redirects certainly save some hassles typing. Awesome. --Brendan (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2014 (CDT)

Categorising images

Thank you that you tried to categorise images you upload. But unfortunately those categorisation doesn't work properly how you do it. When you use a category like [[:Category:Images of Kerbals]] it won't be added to the category but instead simply linking to it. I've already fixed that but it might be that you didn't noticed. Now I don't know if this is simply the MediaWiki software because it appears that you enter the category in the upload description box and maybe the software automatically changes the link from [[Category:Images of Kerbals]] to [[:Category:Images of Kerbals]]. — xZise [talk] 06:26, 16 March 2014 (CDT)

I'd actually gotten the notion from somewhere I'd edited on here that [:Category: was the way I had to do it. [Category: it is then! --Brendan (talk) 06:41, 16 March 2014 (CDT)

It always depend what you are trying to do. Usually you want to add something into a category. Then you use [[Category:…]], but when you want to link to a category, e.g. the {{Infobox/Part/Manufacturer}} does this a lot, you use [[:Category:…]]. So maybe, when you got the notion it was actually linking to the category. This is by the way similar to files. With [[File:…]] it is shown directly but with [[:File:…]] you can directly link to it without embedding it. — xZise [talk] 07:03, 16 March 2014 (CDT)

Missing type in infoboxes

Hi, you need to add type into the infoboxes, or the link to the part.cfg won't work. — xZise [talk] 17:13, 4 April 2014 (CDT)

Possible fix for new lines

Hi Brendan, you were wondering why new lines suddenly appear. Maybe unchecking Enable navigable table of contents in the Editing tab of Preferences does help. I had a problem similar to yours, that when I pasted text into the text it would add a new line after each already existing new line. Disabling that did the trick. — xZise [talk] 04:29, 26 May 2014 (CDT)

Thanks, XZise! I changed it. If you hear nothing further about it, you may assume that fixed the problem for me. --Brendan (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2014 (CDT)

Apology

Hi Brendan, I have to apologise for my edit in XM-G50 Radial Air Intake a few months ago. I can't remember why I basically undid your change and I don't see any reason now. — xZise [talk] 13:11, 1 July 2014 (CDT)

You do a lot around here. One mistake is bound to creep in, right? --Brendan (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2014 (CDT)

Order of "usage" and "description" sections in part pages

Hi, I noticed you moved some description sections above the usage sections. While this was previously always the case I've been sporadically (usually when I was updating the article anyway) switched the order. While I know that it is inconsistent my argumentation was, that the description is relatively useless. A reader which wants to know how to operate that part usually don't want to read that and always has to skip above the section.

Now sometimes, like here it might be advantageous as the quote does not wrap around images creating odd white page.

I also was changing that "Description" to "Manufacturer's description" because sometimes there was a description independently from the quote given in the part configuration. Now it's inconsistent again, but editing 181 pages (according to Parts) is pretty tedious. But I've my notebook running again and my bot might be able to do both tasks automated so it won't be that inconsistent (although it shouldn't be done on pages like Advanced Grabbing Unit). Maybe you have a better idea how to solve that. — xZise [talk] 10:32, 12 July 2014 (CDT)

Hmm... well, regardless what the standard ends up being, definitely prefer it be one that can be automated!

I agree "Description" could use further qualifying. "Manufacturer's description" seems slightly better than "In-game description" (which I'd been using).

And I have to agree, most people will skip past the flavor text. I wouldn't, but I love flavor text. I'd put it first because it was more official than wiki commentators, coming from Squad. But usefulness is a better criteria for what goes first. --Brendan (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2014 (CDT)

Editing description heading and quote/description template usage

Hi, I've finished the script for my bot which will update the heading to “Production description” or “Agency description”, change {{Description}} to {{Quote}} and remove the author (if there is only author and the quotated text given). It'll do that only on pages in Category:Agencies and Category:Default parts.

If you agree with that solution let me know and I let it run. What that script can't do (yet) is check the order for the headings. — xZise [talk] 07:12, 3 August 2014 (CDT)

It actually already edited Kerbin World-Firsts Record-Keeping Society. — xZise [talk] 07:13, 3 August 2014 (CDT)

Okay it might be possible to reordner the sections fairly easy. My suggestion would be:

• Usage (or everything which contains "usage"?)
• Everything else
• Product description
• Trivia
• Changes
• References
• Notes (References and Notes shouldn't be in the same page usually, but this way there is no ambiguity)

I would apply that only to the part pages (pages in Category:Default parts). — xZise [talk] 14:34, 3 August 2014 (CDT)

Looks like a solid plan to me. Personally, I'd put "Product description" just after "Usage" − gives a little rhythm mixing up wiki-tone with KSP-tone. And the descriptions tend to be good, concise overviews. Left at the end, they feel purposeless − all their points have been covered − whereas putting "Everything else" after the description flows better as expounding on that overview. But I'll accept whichever standard you decide on. --Brendan (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2014 (CDT)

I considered Everything else to be a synonym for “Usage”. It is also more or less ready so maybe it can go through them later today. — xZise [talk] 03:00, 4 August 2014 (CDT)